User talk:Elcobbola/Copyright

I'm not sure your interpretation holds up on logos. They might fail the "intended to be embodied in articles" part, and Coca-Cola doesn't quite have the "repeating design elements". The C's are not made simply by repeating design elements because they interact with the other letters in ways that are particular to the Coca-Cola logo.

I am definitely not a lawyer, though. You should perhaps ask someone who is. rspεεr (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, you are definitely not a lawyer. The CFR does not require consistent or uniform repeating, only a relationship.  Satisfaction of embodiment in an article is unambiguously satisfied (see, for example a 10-K filing).  That not withstanding, the Spencerian script is public domain, Frank Robinson has been dead more than 70 years and the logo was published before 1.1.1923.  You'll also note that the Coca-Cola Company uses ® instead of © on the logo.  I'm currently sitting several feet from an attorney.  What, precisely, should I ask him?  Эlcobbola  talk 21:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, I am an attorney who somehow found his way to this page. Very interesting read, though I don't necessarily agree with your final conclusions. I'm not going to say too much, but I will point out the following: (R) lasts forever, that's why its much more desirable than a (C).  The only trick with the (R) is you have to continually, actively protect it while a (C) can be left to sit and rot for the entire term.  I would argue that the final group of logos you show are stylized enough to be, at the very least, defensible in a court of law.  That's where you get the question of "who wants to take this to court against a company that would certainly be willing to pull out all the stops to defend it?" Frankly, I think there is a difference between a typeset/font and a designed logo/artwork.  A case you might find fascinating is Brandir, we read it in copyright law class to better understand the point where form/function come together and actually preclude copyright (in exchange for an industrial design patent, which doesn't last as long as a copyright, but permits a broader protection) --fonts really fall into this argument. However, when you have a style that's not created as a typeface, but rather a piece of "art" or "symbol" (remember, courts have a surprisingly low threshold for what constitutes artistic creativity), I believe you have a copyrighted image: think the famous FedEx with its hidden arrow or Big Ten with its hidden "11". --Bobak (talk) 01:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Discussion of trademarks is irrelevant to this topic. They are separate intellectual properties.  The above sentence mentioning trademark was meant only  to express that the "©" is absent; it was represented as something to "note" - i.e. something interesting - not as support for the claim of copyright ineligibly.


 * That the IBM and Microsoft logos are ineligible are not my conclusions; they both survived Commons deletion discussions in which I did not have any participation on that basis. You do not explain why these examples fail to meet the definition of "typeface" as set forth by the House Report.  The way in which a work is used (i.e. as a logo) indeed impacts its ability to be trademarked, but does not necessarily impact its ability to be copyrighted (which is based, so to speak, on "nature", not use).  That notwithstanding, you'll note that, generally speaking, every litigated matter has at least one attorney or group thereof whose interpretation of law is found to be incorrect.  Your willingness to divulge your legal experience does not make your interpretation more valid, nor does it make you right.  Similarly, I'd thank you not to make assumptions about me.  Эlcobbola  talk 22:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you disagree; but I will dispute the logic in this page if its brought up in a discussion again, for the reason I stated on that logo page. What I said there wasn't a personal insult (please don't read it as such), rather a statement on the arguments on this essay.  All the best. --Bobak (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That typeface is generally ineligible for copyright is a notion adjudicated in Eltra. There can certainly be disagreement as to what constitutes typeface, but, again, you have not articulated why the examples fail to meet the definition set forth by the House Report.  The notions on this page are not, as you have asserted, contrary to Feist.  Feist deals with, among other issues, threshold of originality.  Notions of passing the threshold of originality and being a utilitarian article are not necessarily mutually exclusive.  Perhaps you would care to identify any typeface that does not have "at least some minimal degree of creativity"?  If we're commenting on arguments, I might say those presented on "that logo page" lack substantiation and judicious and necessary consideration of the pertinent issue(s).  Эlcobbola  talk 16:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)